Hayathnagar police face allegations of procedural lapses in drunk driving accident case
HYDERABAD: Social activist Bokka Vamshidhar Reddy has accused Hayathnagar Police of Malkajgiri Commissionerate of procedural lapses after a breath analyser test showed a lorry driver was inebriated, but the relevant section of the Motor Vehicles Act for driving under the influence was omitted from the First Information Report (FIR). He also said police took no action against the lorry owner for unauthorised soil transportation, a violation of revenue and environmental regulations.
On June 5, 2026, at about 11:25 AM, Bokka Vamshidhar Reddy, a resident of Injapur Village, was returning from a meeting. He was driving with Nayini Chinnareddy when a tipper lorry (KA35B5949) sped from the Thorrur–Koheda direction and hit the rear of his car near the Koheda–Pravampalli junction.
Following the collision, Reddy told HyderabadMail that the crash was severe and he narrowly escaped life threatening injuries. The lorry driver tried to flee, but Reddy chased him and stopped the vehicle. He called Dial-100 and handed the driver over to police.
Subsequently, Reddy said police conducted a breath analyser test that showed a Blood Alcohol Concentration (BAC) of 444 mg/100ml, far beyond the legal limit of 30 mg/100ml under the Motor Vehicles Act. Despite this, police registered the case only under Section 281 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (rash or negligent driving) and left out Section 185 (driving under the influence) of the Motor Vehicles Act. They released the driver after recording the vehicle number.
On social media, Reddy questioned why the breath analyser test result of 444 BAC was not included in the FIR and why the driver’s name was missing. He said the FIR did not match his complaint. He also asked why police took no action against the lorry owner for unauthorised soil transport.
Reddy made several allegations against Hayathnagar Police. He said that although the breath analyser test showed 444 mg/100ml BAC, police did not include Section 185 (driving under the influence) of the Motor Vehicles Act in the FIR. He claimed the driver’s name was missing or incorrect in the FIR, raising concerns of identity substitution. Reddy said police only booked the case under rash and negligent driving, while ignoring his complaint regarding unauthorised soil transportation without Revenue Department approval.
Further, Reddy alleged that hundreds of lorries in the area transport soil without authorisation from the Revenue Department. He filed a separate complaint with the Mandal Revenue Officer (MRO), who promised to levy a penalty of Rs 25,000 against violators under applicable land and revenue regulations. Reddy said he has received no update and noted that the police FIR did not mention the soil transportation offence.
Afterward, Reddy said he was not satisfied with how the Station House Officer (SHO) handled the case. He took the issue to the Assistant Commissioner of Police (ACP), who said a charge sheet would be filed and a copy given to Reddy. He believes that police tried to downplay the case and cover up what should have been a more serious prosecution.
Expressing concern for public safety Reddy said, “It wasn’t about the Rs 5,000 or Rs 10,000 I could have accepted to repair my vehicle. If a drunk driver gets on the road, he could kill ten people. I filed this complaint out of concern for society. If police handle it this way, what does that say about our society?”
